A Research on The Subjective Eligibility of Generative Artificial

Intelligence Copyrights

Tianai Xie

Department of Law and Business, Shue Yan University, Hong Kong, China

Keywords: Generative Artificial Intelligence, Subject of The Law, Copyright Law, AI Technologies.

Abstract: Artificial Intelligence is a technology that mimics human thinking, using powerful algorithms and data to help

humans solve problems. In the last few years, AI technology has been evolving at a faster and faster pace.

From the early days of simple activities such as waving a hand to today's conversations, these changes signal

that AI has reached a higher level. While these massive advances have brought a lot of convenience and

benefits to human life, a series of legal issues brought about by AI technology are slowly coming to the fore.

Questions like the more concerned about the product of generative artificial intelligence can be protected by

law? These questions are still undecided and worth thinking about. This paper focuses on the subject qualifi-

cation of generative artificial intelligence. I will discuss the feasibility of subject qualification of generative

AI from three aspects to affirm the subject status of AI.

1 INTRODUCTION

Generative Artificial Intelligence, as a new

technology, has attracted a lot of attention since it was

proposed. From 1956 to the present day, AI

technology has continued to develop and grow

rapidly, gradually occupying people's lives. Early

artificial intelligence development is not mature and

not much functionality. It can only carry out some

very simple unilateral activities, such as waving

hands, checkers program and so on. This stage of

artificial intelligence is seriously need to rely on

external forces and control, there is no full autonomy.

And then, the artificial intelligence undergoes a

revolutionary progress and enters into a booming

stage. Artificial intelligence has been improved a lot

of functions such as dialogue, synthesize pictures,

etc., and even have deep thinking. For example, a

very famous event before, Ke Jie versus AI AlphaGo,

finally ended with the defeat of Ke Jie. And now

generative AI gradually came into everyone's view,

and widely used in real life, like home sweepers, face

recognition and automatic driving, etc. Regardless of

what we think about it, it is undeniable that artificial

intelligence is making profound changes to our lives,

and the era of artificial intelligence has already

arrived (Ma, 2019).

With the rise of artificial intelligence, it has

caused a boom in the use of artificial intelligence in

the society. A large number of enterprises and

individuals have put AI technology into production,

work and even study. The use of artificial intelligence

can also be seen everywhere in all walks of life. These

have just become very common, and people's

tolerance of AI has gradually increased. At present,

with the deep adjustment of the international

industrial division of labor pattern and the global

competition for scientific and technological

innovation, the new round of scientific and

technological revolution represented by artificial

intelligence poses new challenges to the current

intellectual property system (Yu et al., 2021). Right

now the development of artificial intelligence is a hot

topic, and many corporations and investors are trying

to join the industry because of its prospects. But the

more people involved often leads to greater confusion

and malicious competition, such as malicious use of

AI technology for face-swapping to scam. So how to

define the product of artificial intelligence? Can its

products keep legal protection? And as well as in the

field of jurisprudence, nothing is more controversial

than the exploration of the possibility of legal

subjectivization by the consciousness displayed by AI

(Gong and Yan, 2024). None of these issues have yet

been resolved, and in this way regulating the use of

AI is imminent.

In November 2023, the Beijing Internet Court

heard the first “AI” case, which clarified the attributes

of “works” for images generated by AI and the

Xie, T.

A Research on the Subjective Eligibility of Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence Copyrights.

DOI: 10.5220/0013975400004912

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development (IESD 2025), pages 173-179

ISBN: 978-989-758-779-5

173

“creator” status of AI users, a decision that triggered

a debate about the legal subjectivization of AI. This

judgment triggered heated debate in the academic

community. There are also cases related to AI in

Australia. In Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents

(2021), the Australian Patent Office rejected an

application for an AI invention, which triggered a

wide-ranging discussion on whether AI can be

recognized as an inventor, and emphasized the

limitations of the current patent law on AI. If AI is

given the status of a subject, it means that it possesses

the qualification of a legal subject, enjoys the capacity

of civil rights, and bears civil obligations (Wen,

2020). This paper will focus on the subject

qualification of generative artificial intelligence,

discussing the following three aspects: the

connotation and characteristics of generative artificial

intelligence, the necessity of granting the legal

subject qualification of generative artificial

intelligence and the feasibility of granting the legal

subject qualification of generative artificial

intelligence. With many academic views mixed, it is

necessary to discuss the legal subject status of

artificial intelligence, which helps to establish the

responsibility and right attribution and improve the

formulation of relevant laws and regulations to cope

with the emergence of new problems in the future.

2 MEANING AND

CHARACTERISTICS OF

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE

2.1 Connotation

Artificial Intelligence is a technology that mimics the

human mind, Generative AI is AI that is capable of

generating text, images, or other media using

generative models (Yilin Li, 2024). AI works on

principles involving data-driven, algorithmically-

enabled, and computationally-efficient use of

computing resources, and revolves around mimicking

and expanding human intelligence's capabilities,

enabling computer systems to automatically perform

cognitive tasks such as learning, reasoning,

perceiving, understanding, communicating, and

decision-making. The 2018 White Paper on Artificial

Intelligence Standardization defines Artificial

Intelligence as: Artificial Intelligence is the theory,

methodology, and application system that uses digital

computers or machines controlled by digital

computers to simulate, extend, and expand human

intelligence, to perceive environments, to acquire

knowledge, and to use that knowledge to obtain

optimal results (Wen, 2020). Generative AI operates

by relying on powerful arithmetic capabilities to

generate appropriate content by sifting through

information in a database to fulfill instructions. The

creative thinking of human authors is simulated with

input of questions and requirements, and eventually

generates a complete and innovative work in

generalized language that is expected by human

authors and is difficult to be fully predicted by the

current human intelligence before the output of the

result (Mengfei Li, 2024).

The best known AI in the current society is

dominated by ChatGPT. ChatGPT has the qualities of

spontaneous deep learning of mass-stored data, and is

able to excel in understanding user requests, and then

generating the corresponding answers in an almost

human natural language way, combining the

contextual context and the logic and conventions of

the corresponding language (Gong and Yan, 2024).

Compared with the original AI, the current stage of

AI embodies the nature of strong interactivity and

corpus dependency, which better meets the needs of

customers. In addition, generative AI can be

unimodal or multimodal depending on different types

of quantities of inputs.

2.2 Characteristics

One of the characteristics of generative AI is

autonomy. The scientific definition of autonomy is

the motivation, ability, or characteristic of an agent to

act on his or her own volition. Of course, the concept

of autonomy is different from different fields and

perspectives. This article will discuss it from a legal

perspective. How to judge whether an object has

autonomy is analyzed from the two bases of self-

consciousness and free will. Generally speaking, self-

consciousness is more a matter of the difference

between strength and weakness than whether it exists

or not. Take humans for example, most humans are

self-aware, even people with mental illnesses have

their own self-awareness, they just think differently

than the general public. Adults have a stronger sense

of self than children, and again there are differences

across adults and individuals. Some people with a

stronger sense of self are more subjective, while

others with a weaker sense of self are less subjective.

The expression of the intensity of self-awareness is

mainly reflected in the two aspects of objective

evaluation and reflection on oneself. Then free will

develops on the basis of self-awareness. There are

two criteria for free will, one is the internal factor, the

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

174

ability of the actor to make choices independently

from external constraints; the other is the selective

criterion that is the external influence, the ability of

the actor to make choices according to his own will

or needs (Cheng, 2022). The synthesis of the above is

substituted into artificial intelligence. For the self-

awareness of AI, if AI has complete and independent

self-awareness, then they will exist independently

from human control. This is not possible at the current

level of development, and AI is not yet completely

free from human control and commands, because AI

is created by humans, and the pre-production process

relies on a plurality of roles (Mengfei Li, 2024),

which is a derivation of human civilization. It is

impossible for AI to have substantial self-awareness

but only formal self-awareness, which is a reflection

of human consciousness. Although AI does not seem

to be independent of humans, in addition to self-

awareness, free-will AI is higher than humans. Some

AIs are not only able to fulfill the instructions given

by humans, but also set up behaviors according to the

set goals. This means that the AI can satisfy both the

selectivity criterion of free will and the endogenous

criterion of free will, thus judging that it has free will.

Thus viewed, AI is not self-aware but still has a

certain degree of autonomy.

The second characteristic is humanoid nature.

Generative AI works by utilizing neural networks

inspired by neurons in the human brain to learn

patterns and features from existing data. Even though

AI, as a human-like machine, may feel devoid of

emotions and human-like instincts, so much so that

such mental instincts and emotions are only the result

of modeling, prompting the public to feel that it

cannot be compared to human beings (Jia, 2024), in

fact, “there is a simulation and creation function in the

internal system, which is capable of simulating and

replicating the human brain's thinking process and

writing thoughts that always maintains a high degree

of similarity to human works. These models can then

generate new data that match the learned patterns”

(Mengfei Li, 2024). For example, an AI model trained

on a set of images can create new images that look

similar to those used in training. The humanoid nature

of AI is also reflected in aspects such as emotion

recognition, visual imitation, and memory storage.

Artificial intelligence can capture human facial

expressions and analyze their mood through cameras;

Humanoid robots can communicate face-to-face with

humans and mimic each other's appearance and

behavior. There is also an artificial intelligence that

can remember the user's preferences and historical

data for adjustments. Aside from that, some of the

more advanced AIs are also able to communicate with

the user in a continuous dialog, allowing the AI to

break through the original drawbacks of rigid

terminology and stilted exposition, and take the

technology to the next level.

3 THE NECESSITY OF

GRANTING LEGAL SUBJEC-

TIVITY TO GENERATIVE AR-

TIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

At the current time, there is no conclusive answer on

the issue of the subjectivization of artificial

intelligence. There are schools of thought that affirm

the legal subject of artificial intelligence, and at the

same time, there are also negative schools. But no

matter which viewpoint and position, it is a push for

the legalization of artificial intelligence. This paper

argues that there is a need to affirm the subject status

of generative artificial intelligence.

A legal subject is a person in the legal sense, a

subject that by definition has both legal rights and

legal obligations. In lawmaking, entities that exist in

reality are transformed into legal persons, so that

entities with various characteristics in life appear in

law as legal subjects with a unified identity (Ma,

2019). When AI meets the requirements of intelligent

consciousness and is able to understand rights and

obligations in order to follow the law in practicing its

behavior, it rightfully possesses the qualification of

legal subject (Yuan, 2020; Yuan, 2023). In 2023, the

State Council promulgated the Interim Measures for

the Administration of Generative AI Services to

encourage the innovative application of generative AI

in various industries and fields, and this document

recognizes the legal liability of generative AI to a

certain extent. Based on the characteristics of

generative AI mentioned above, we have learned that

AI has a certain degree of autonomy. This means that

AI can not only fulfill tasks according to human

instructions, but it can also reflect and learn on its

own within a given framework, and may even

develop into a human-like subject. The counter-

argument, mentioned earlier, is that AI is not self-

aware, is not independent of humans, is emotionless,

and will not develop beyond humans themselves.

These ideas are not fully accepted nor can they be

criticized in their entirety, “simply on the grounds that

the existence of AI is predicated on human

intellectual activity does not negate the self-will of

AI” (Yang and Zhang, 2018). It is true that a complete

AI needs to be set up and produced by humans in

order to emerge. Once an AI AI has a complete

A Research on the Subjective Eligibility of Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence Copyrights

175

system, it has an independent operating program,

which means that the AI can actually operate

independently of humans. Looking at it this way there

is no doubt that AI has a form of self-awareness and

free will. And in society artificial intelligence has

become an advanced labor force to replace some

manual labor. Some low-level simple and repetitive

operations can be replaced by artificial intelligence,

which not only saves labor costs but also less prone

to errors and accidents. Therefore a large number of

enterprises and factories have chosen this model.

Artificial intelligence labor force has competitive,

complementary and independent relationship with

human labor force (Cheng, 2022). After the above

analysis, it shows that artificial intelligence with

autonomy needs to take responsibility related legal

responsibility, then artificial intelligence needs

another reasonable legal status. Only from the moral

responsibility is very difficult to constrain and

determine the behavior of artificial intelligence, even

if the advanced computer system also lacks the

attributes of a fully mature moral actor (Song and Li,

2019). This is where statutory responsibility has to

intervene.

Meanwhile, how to determine tort liability if AI

does not have the status of a legal subject. Moral

responsibility is theoretically impossible to

discipline, and artificial intelligence is only

applicable to humans as the behind-the-scenes

controllers, because human beings have thoughts and

feelings, and artificial intelligence has no emotions

and naturally cannot know the concept of morality.

Strong laws are a good way to do that. The

consideration of accident liability for human-machine

systems must consider the roles and interactions

between humans and technology in this whole (Song

and Li, 2019). Even if the content generated by the AI

is only ideologically similar to the prior work and thus

cannot be recognized as infringing content, it does not

necessarily follow that the use of the work while

training the AI does not infringe copyright (Wang,

2024). This is because the AI underwent a lot of

training and simulation before it reached the standard.

And whether the samples used in this process are seen

as infringement in the full sense or not. Liability

capacity should be a substantive subjective element,

and can meet the specific standards to obtain the

subjective element (He and Liu, 2024). As mentioned

earlier, artificial intelligence is already high-tech will

bring certain risks, is no longer purely controlled by

human tools, to give artificial intelligence subject

status is very necessary. It is unfair that only human

beings should bear the risk and responsibility of the

consequences of AI behavior alone. It should be the

responsibility of the will of multiple parties. If the

establishment of the legal subject status of artificial

intelligence is more convenient to clarify the

responsibilities and rights of all parties, the

boundaries are more clear. For example, a special

account (Sun, 2024) should be set up for AI, and the

infringement can be compensated from its account. If

the nature of the infringement is more serious, the

system of AI can be deactivated or eliminated. This is

a way to solve the problems caused by AI and to

ensure that the AI itself can be held accountable. A

few years ago there were countries that penalized AI,

and in the United States, the driverless system was

held fully responsible for the death of a pedestrian in

a driverless crash. In short, artificial intelligence

actually has the ability to assume responsibility, so it

is also feasible to give legal subject status. It can be

seen that the subject status of artificial intelligence

can effectively control the risks brought by artificial

intelligence. Although the emergence of artificial

intelligence brings great convenience and greatly

changes people's way of life, it also impacts on

traditional culture, morality and values. Therefore, it

is necessary to give artificial intelligence legal

personality, incorporate artificial intelligence into a

unified system of technical and ethical norms for

regulation, and establish a corresponding legal system

mechanism to dissipate the risks and dangers that

artificial intelligence may bring (Yang and Zhang,

2018). And AI technology, as an independent

product, should also be given the status of a subject.

On top of that, the current law should hold an open

attitude to adapt to the legal needs of the rapid

development of artificial intelligence, which can be

given a certain legal subject status. The old traditional

legal personality can no longer meet the development

speed and changes of artificial intelligence, and there

is an urgent need to give artificial intelligence a new

legal subject status. Nowadays, artificial intelligence

has been commonly used in life, when a thing is

widely developed, if it is not restrained and managed

then it will inevitably cause unforeseen disasters.

Therefore, it is very important to give artificial

intelligence subject status. If artificial intelligence has

the status of the main body, it will be better to carry

out its responsibility subdivision, but also can

effectively control the risk in favor of artificial

intelligence in a good and fair and orderly

environment for the healthy development of artificial

intelligence. If AI is considered a legal subject, the

public may have more trust in its decisions and

behaviors, especially in settings involving important

decisions, such as medical diagnosis or legal advice.

Giving AI the status of a legal subject in terms of

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

176

social responsibility could motivate developers and

operators to pay more attention to their social

responsibility and promote more responsible

technology development. In addition, different

countries have different views on the legal subject

status of AI, and if AI is given legal subject status, it

can simplify legal issues in international transactions

and reduce the complexity of cross-border disputes.

The subject status of artificial intelligence can be used

as an open structure, this program not only helps to

solve the problem of artificial intelligence damage

sharing also provides new ideas for the future

development of artificial intelligence, helping new

laws and regulations to flourish.

4 LEGAL FEASIBILITY OF

GRANTING LEGAL

SUBJECTIVITY TO

GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL

INTELLIGENCE

4.1 The Content of The Civil Subject

Qualifications

From the perspective of law alone, civil subjects are

centered on human beings. So, does artificial

intelligence as a robot fail to become a subject in the

legal sense? The human being in law is essentially a

technology for establishing legal order (Sun, 2024).

Legal mimesis, as a way of constructing law, is

merely a manifestation of a more obviously mimetic

character of the law as mimesis (Zu, 2024), in other

words, the law itself is mimetic. Given that the legal

system is mimetic, the subject of law, which is one of

the core elements of law, is also mimetic. By analogy,

it is also possible to anthropomorphize personality,

that is, to anthropomorphize a specific object other

than a person. In the Anglo-American system, the

subject of law is not necessarily a “person” but a duty,

a relatively hidden subject. For example, a fiduciary

duty can only act in good faith and trust in the name

of the trustee, so that when viewed in isolation the

trust is no longer a hidden subject. Then artificial

intelligence as a specific object must also be able to

become the subject of the law. According to the

human-like characteristics of artificial intelligence,

not only from the thinking to simulate human beings

but also from the appearance to imitate the

appearance of human beings, structural-behavioral

characteristics embedded in the kernel of artificial

intelligence “human-like characteristics”, artificial

intelligence robots are essentially a kind of chimera

of human consciousness (Zu, 2024). Some scholars

who deny that generative AI has become a legal

subject believe that AI lacks rationality and emotion

and cannot be a legal subject. And now in the era of

strong AI, simply denying the subject status of AI

ignores the potential emotional needs and

management risks of AI. Apart from this, AI, as an

already relatively mature technology, is capable of

independent expression. The autonomy of artificial

intelligence requires it to have free will and self-

awareness, and the current artificial intelligence is

having free will and formal self-awareness. Artificial

intelligence outputs the corresponding content

according to the requirements of the input, under the

domination of emotions, strong artificial intelligence

has the ability of independent expression and should

be part of the social subject (He and Liu, 2024).

Artificial intelligence discerns the authenticity and

accuracy of users' messages, exchanges and

communicates with users, and relies on its own

understanding of the requirements not only the

settings within the framework of the programming

program. In this way, the AI's ability to express itself

independently is sufficient to support it as a subject in

law. In addition to the above two points, the law also

needs to change and adapt to the new group of things.

In the era of rapid iteration of science and technology,

the establishment or not of the independent legal

status of emerging legal subjects should also consider

the pursuit of the value of the legal system that

encourages technological innovation and

development, and explore the diversification of legal

subjects (Sun, 2024). Furthermore, how to apply

traditional theories to new scenarios is also something

that scholars of AI jurisprudence should do. However,

the relevance of AI jurisprudence cannot be denied.

When artificial intelligence is given the status of legal

subject, the court can directly attribute the

responsibility to the artificial intelligence. If you want

to find out the authorizer behind the artificial

intelligence may be very complicated, and the

artificial intelligence has become the subject can

quickly solve such problems. In this case, it is a direct

requirement for the AI to be obligated to pursue

responsibility in order to realize “stopping the

infringement”, which is also based on the need for

human beings to protect their own rights (Yang and

Zhang, 2018).

In the second half of 2017, at the Future

Investment Program conference in Saudi Arabia, the

Saudi government announced the granting of

citizenship to Sofia, an artificial intelligence robot.

This is a good attempt at the legal subject status of

A Research on the Subjective Eligibility of Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence Copyrights

177

generative AI. The interaction between non-humans

and humans is the intermingling and merging of two

rules. Just as AI robots are created, but they

themselves may develop their own rules of the AI

world, and then interact with humans, we should

accept the rules of adaptation and create the human

world for them (Wen, 2020).

4.2 Legal Approach

There are now two main arguments for granting AI

the status of a legal subject, e-personality and mimetic

argument. The mimetic theory believes that the legal

personality of artificial intelligence should be

positioned as an independent mimetic legal

personality from the realistic requirements of the

development of artificial intelligence (Yang and

Zhang, 2018). The emergence of artificial

intelligence is to protect the rights and interests of

human beings. The order or rank of human's own

rights is naturally higher than that of artificial

intelligence (Yang and Zhang, 2018). The ethical

starting point of the proposed legal subject system is

the pattern of human-centered order, and the purpose

of the system also serves to safeguard the practical

interests of human beings (Zu, 2024).

This article will focus on the e-personality

narrative. In recent years, the legal person system is

also expanding, in addition to corporate and non-

organizational legal persons, more and more interest-

based groups are seeking the qualification of legal

persons, such as public interest legal persons,

environmental legal persons and so on. All these legal

anthropomorphisms can become legal subjects, then

artificial intelligence robots with human-like

intelligence with autonomous consciousness and

recognition ability can also become civil law subjects

(Wen, 2024). In 2021, the European Union proposed

the Artificial Intelligence Act, which divides the risks

of AI into four levels: prohibited risk, high risk,

limited risk, and minimal risk. Each risk has a

different regulatory approach. It aims to establish a

comprehensive legal framework to regulate the

development and use of AI. By categorizing and

regulating AI systems with different risk levels, the

EU hopes to promote technological innovation while

protecting the rights of citizens and the safety of

society.

As technology advances, AI robots have advanced

to the point where they are virtually indistinguishable

from real people. Assuming that one day AI is

completely out of human control, who will bear the

consequences of what it does? Some

scholars(Zhang,2019) arguethat this view of e-

humanity starts from the fact that AI has the ability to

mean and be responsible in terms of property, and

argues that behind the autonomous behavior of AI is

the embodiment of the will of multiple subjects, and

that it is feasible to anthropomorphize it into an e-

legal person with the progression of property

personality. Since many objects other than human

beings can become legal subjects, artificial

intelligence as a more mature and advanced object

can also become a legal subject. Artificial

Intelligence Artificial Intelligence has autonomous

free will, and will surely generate autonomous

consciousness soon, when the self-control

consciousness of AI develops to a certain extent, how

should it be controlled? Who will bear the

responsibility for the damage brought about? So

about the advocated e-personality, some people think

that e-personality is similar to the legal fiction of the

legal person system, which grants it limited civil

rights and establishes a fund and insurance to bear the

loss of the risk of robotic damage (Wen, 2024).

Judging from the development history of artificial

intelligence, artificial intelligence is actually more

inclined to "cyborg". AI is a virtual image but can be

seen everywhere in life, and "the human being in law

is not a separate ontology outside of 'its' obligations

and rights, but only a personified unity of them" (Ma,

2019). To put it simply, a legal “person” is

distinguished by rights and duties, without which

there is no “person”. In February 2016, Google's self-

driving car's artificial intelligence system was

recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration as a “driver”. The above case

illustrates the preference of some countries for the

legal subject status of AI, which has been granted a

certain degree of rights and obligations. Moreover,

beyond the AI's property rights and ability to assume

responsibility as described above, emotional

rationality also makes the AI look like a “cyborg”.

The ancient Greek philosopher Kant considered

reason as “the human capacity to recognize things in

the perceptible world and their regularities. Human

rationality enables human beings to explore the laws

of the world, and artificial intelligence can also

analyze and explore things, which means that

artificial intelligence should also be a "human" with

super intelligence, closer to "cyborg". The

manifestation of the capacity of meaning and

responsibility of artificial intelligence is not limited

only to property, but its most important expression is

emotion. The possession of the emotional element

allows the AI to develop the ability to mean the

contents of multiple parties. In addition, the ability of

legal persons to obtain the status of independent

IESD 2025 - International Conference on Innovative Education and Social Development

178

subjects in law is dependent on the need of society for

legal persons (He and Liu, 2024). Overall, the ability

of artificial intelligence to assume responsibility and

the right to own property, as well as the development

of a sense of autonomy, make artificial intelligence

more and more in line with the “electronic human

being”. Hence, artificial intelligence should be given

the status of a legal subject as soon as possible.

5 CONCLUSION

The rapid development of technology nowadays has

brought us into the era of strong artificial intelligence.

Wrapped up in the trend of the times, we also have to

adapt to the changes and developments. Since

generative artificial intelligence is an unstoppable

craze, we have an open attitude and mind to accept it.

The legal subject status of generative artificial

intelligence is still inconclusive, and each academic

school holds its own opinions and views. We don't

have to deny any one viewpoint, “existence is

reasonable”. In the face of the qualification of the

legal subject of generative artificial intelligence, we

need to combine the current law with the technical

characteristics of the current stage of artificial

intelligence, and explore the challenges brought by

artificial intelligence to the judicial system and the

arrangements for the future. As for, the legislation

related to artificial intelligence is actually a dynamic

process, slowly groping and developing in a gradual

manner. Human beings, as the leading legal

constructor, are already planning the relationship and

status of human beings and artificial intelligence.

Although there are still some controversies as well as

the law has a lag, but always adjusted to adapt to the

needs and changes in society. If the technology of

artificial intelligence is utilized properly and

regulated by law, it will certainly bring our scientific

and technological innovation to a higher level.

REFERENCES

Cheng, C. P. 2022. On the Autonomy of Artificial Intelli-

gence. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Phi-

losophy and Social Science Edition) (01), 43-51.

Gong, S. S. & Yan X. X. 2024. Consciousness as the stand-

ard? A Critique of the "False Proposition" of the Legal

Subjectivity of Artificial Intelligence. Dialectics of Na-

ture Newsletter (07), 92-102.

He, P. & Liu, J. K. 2024. Study on Intellectual Property Is-

sues of Generative Artificial Intelligence Products from

the Perspective of Jurisdictional Coordination--Taking

ChatGPT as an Example. Rule of Law Research (03),

47-56.

Jia, Z. Y. 2024. Thoughts and rule conception of the legal

subject status of artificial intelligence under the per-

spective of negativism. Journal of Shanxi Youth Voca-

tional College (02), 67-72+85.

Li, Y. L. 2024. Generative artificial intelligence and copy-

right law: legal challenges and future prospects.

Jianghan Academic (06), 5-15.

Li, M. F. 2024. Attribution of Rights and Path of Protection

of Generative Artificial Intelligence Creations in the

Field of Copyright. Rule of Law Practice (02), 189-199.

Ma, L. 2019. On the legal subject status of artificial intelli-

gences. Regional Governance (31), 104-106.

Song, C. Y. & Li, L. 2019. Autonomy and Responsibility

Assumption of Artificial Intelligence Bodies. Dialectics

of Nature Newsletter (11), 95-100.

Sun, N. 2024. Rethinking the Establishment of the Legal

Subject Status of Artificial Intelligence. Law Forum

(05), 112-121.

Wang, Q. & Chu, C. 2024. A preliminary study on the

boundary between artificial intelligence and copyright:

legal challenges and reflections under technological

progress. Chinese Editorial (08), 56-62.

Wen, Q. H. 2020. Exploration of legal subject development

and artificial intelligence legal subject qualification.

Journal of Zhejiang Wanli University (02), 27-31+111.

Yu, X., Zhang, R. Z., Zhang, B. & Wang, H. 2021.Research

on intellectual property system adapting to the rapid de-

velopment of artificial intelligence. Research Manage-

ment (08), 176-183.

Yuan, Z. 2020. Re-examining the legal personality of arti-

ficial intelligence based on functional perspective.

Journal of Shanghai University (Social Science Edi-

tion) (01), 16-26.

Yuan, Z. 2023. A study on the liability capacity of genera-

tive artificial intelligence. Oriental Law (03), 18-33.

Yang, Q. W. & Zhang, L. 2018. On the Mimetic Legal Per-

sonality of Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Hunan

University of Science and Technology (Social Science

Edition) (06), 91-97.

Zhang, Z. J. 2019. On the status of artificial intelligence as

an electronic legal person. Modern Jurisprudence (05),

75-88.

Zu, L. 2024. Re-exploration of the status of legal mimetic

subject of artificial intelligence - oriented to the legal

subject system under the perspective of mimetic philos-

ophy. Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social

Science Edition) (04), 152-163.

A Research on the Subjective Eligibility of Generative Artiﬁcial Intelligence Copyrights

179